[dpoloncsak]

Right, you're describing a curriculum clearly centered around a visible indication that the student is learning and performing. That's what I'm suggesting as well.

'AI Traps' will just forever be a game of cat-and-mouse. We need an education overhaul. School faculty should be less focused on catching LLM use, and more focused on teaching lessons that can't be easily bullshit by AI

[theamk]

What kind of "education overhaul" you have in mind? Some things can be easily verified in class (run a mile), but some require effort (write exam in class / testing center), and some require too much effort to be practical (multi-day research or programming project).

Unfortunately at the high school level, the materials are not that complex, and there are a lot of ways to cheat. Answer keys for textbooks, graphical calculators (or CAS systems), reports copied wholesale from some websites. AI just made all of this significantly worse.

[dpoloncsak]

That's an answer I don't have, and am not qualified to make. I'd defer the decision to teachers and those who work well with children already, I just don't think this current iteration works.

If I had to guess, it would look something like a software that confines the student to the software and provides interactive lessons and exams...but I'm a computer guy, my answer will always be "use a computer"

[theamk]

"confines the student to the software and provides interactive lessons and example" - this already exists. It is also useless without continuous supervision, as students will simply take a 2nd device (cell phone or tablet), start LLM app on it, then point to locked-down device's screen and ask to solve the problem. Yes, it slows down the process a bit since the students have to actually re-type the LLM answers instead of copy-pasting them, but it does not eliminate the problem.

"That's an answer I don't have .. I'd defer the decision to teachers" - you are really sounding right now like someone who comes to a town's discussion of whether to get more solar panels, and starts saying how nice it would be if the fusion were solved, and we all had an near-infinite source of cheap and clean energy. Yes, it would be nice, but unless you have a good idea on how to achieve this, please don't distract people from the real problems they have.

The AI-in-education is the same way: there is a crisis right now, and it seems that the only way is to lean heavily onto proctored exams - which students hate, and are more expensive for schools too. Saying "There should be a better way, I have no idea about what this better way is, but meanwhile what you are doing is bad" really does not help much.

[dpoloncsak]

1. Yes, and elsewhere in the thread I am suggesting proctored exams as well. Agreed.

2. I believe there is value in identifying issues with the current implementation, as it's required to fix them in the next implementation. This isn't a project I'm working on, related to my career path, or anything I'm passionate about. I am simply stating that I find the current implementation is flawed, and I believe it stems from the mindset of the original comment's "I wouldn't like cheaters to compete with honest students on the job market." I understand there is a difference between being resourceful and cheating, and using LLMs to write essays is clearly cheating, but, as someone who is not an educator and does not have children, I assume it is important to instill a sense of resourcefulness as well. If the entire purpose of education has become the job market, and the job market rewards resourceful people....

3.Seems to be replied to in 2.